Case: 2:19-cv-00119-MHW-EPD Doc #: 63 Filed: 06/02/20 Page: 1 of 8 PAGEID #: 455

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION

Stephanie Clifford,
Plaintiff,
v.

Civil Action 2:19-cv-119
Judge Michael H. Watson

Shana M. Keckley, et al.,
Magistrate Judge Deavers
Defendants.
OPINION AND ORDER
Stephanie Clifford (“Plaintiff’) and the City of Columbus 1 entered into a
settlement agreement which fully resolves the underlying dispute in this case.
Since settlement, things have become more complicated because multiple
parties claim entitlement to a portion of Plaintiff’s settlement award.
I.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL OVERVIEW

Plaintiff’s former attorney, Michael Avenatti (“Avenatti”), filed a Notice of
Attorney Lien and sought to collect from the settlement award for unpaid
attorney’s fees. ECF No. 40. Avenatti subsequently withdrew that notice
because he and Plaintiff are arbitrating the contested fees, but he asks the Court
to stay any payout of the settlement funds to Plaintiff until the arbitration is
resolved. 2 See ECF No. 45. Even though Avenatti withdrew the Notice of

1

The City of Columbus has deposited the funds with the Clerk of Court and is no longer
an active participant in this case. See ECF No. 53.
2
Plaintiff moved to strike Avenatti’s Notice of Attorney Lien, but because Avenatti’s

 Case: 2:19-cv-00119-MHW-EPD Doc #: 63 Filed: 06/02/20 Page: 2 of 8 PAGEID #: 456

Attorney Lien, Plaintiff subsequently moved for sanctions under Rule 11 against
Avenatti for that filing and for his request of a stay. ECF No. 49.
Donald J. Trump (“Trump”), in his individual capacity, also filed a Notice of
Interested Party and Notice of Registered Foreign Judgment, contending that a
judgment awarded to him and against Plaintiff in a separate lawsuit in California
entitles him to a portion of the settlement funds in this case. ECF Nos. 42, 43.
Plaintiff moved to vacate Trump’s registered judgment, ECF No. 47, and
subsequently has filed a Notice indicating that Trump did not receive a valid
certificate of judgment against her because the Clerk for the California court has
since rescinded the certification as having been issued in error. ECF No. 57.
Thereafter, Trump filed a Notice indicating that a hearing in the United States
District Court for the Central District of California is currently scheduled for July
17, 2020, to determine whether to certify the attorney’s fee award as a judgment.
ECF No. 61. Trump seeks a stay until that matter is resolved.
Finally, Plaintiff’s current attorneys in this lawsuit seek to collect their
attorney’s fees before either Avenatti or Trump can collect their purported shares
of the settlement proceeds.
The Court initially had asked the parties to brief only the issue of whether
Plaintiff’s current attorneys could collect their fees from the settlement award

Notice has been withdrawn, the Court DENIES as MOOT Plaintiff’s motion to strike.
ECF No. 41.
Case No. 2:19-cv-119
Page 2 of 8

 Case: 2:19-cv-00119-MHW-EPD Doc #: 63 Filed: 06/02/20 Page: 3 of 8 PAGEID #: 457

prior to deciding whether any of the interested parties were entitled to a portion of
the settlement funds. But it appears the parties could not separate out the issue
of payment priority from the issue of whether Trump and Avenatti have a valid,
enforceable interest in the settlement funds at all. Indeed, one of Plaintiff’s
arguments as to why her current attorneys should be paid first is that Trump and
Avenatti do not have any valid legal claims to the settlement funds. See ECF
No. 54. Given the parties’ briefings and the subsequent filings in this case,
resolution of Trump’s and Avenatti’s purported interest negates the need to
decide the original issue.
II.

ANALYSIS

A. Avenatti’s Interest in the Settlement Funds
As it currently stands, Avenatti has withdrawn his Notice of Attorney Lien;
as a result, he has no valid, enforceable interest in a share of the settlement
funds. See ECF No. 45. Nevertheless, he argues that the Court should stay
this case until he and Plaintiff complete arbitration, presumably because he could
have an enforceable interest in the future. ECF Nos. 45, 52, 56.
Although Avenatti argues that he is entitled to a portion of the settlement
funds “under California law,” he fails to cite to any legal support justifying his
request for a stay of this case until he and Plaintiff finish arbitration. See Resp.
2, ECF No. 56 (citing Flannery v. Prentice, 26 Cal. 4th 572, 588–89 (Cal. 2001)
(finding that an attorney can still be entitled to fees absent a written fee
Case No. 2:19-cv-119

Page 3 of 8

 Case: 2:19-cv-00119-MHW-EPD Doc #: 63 Filed: 06/02/20 Page: 4 of 8 PAGEID #: 458

agreement); Hendricks v. Superior Court of San Francisco, 197 Cal. App. 2d 586,
589 (1961) (no mention of arbitration, only holds that in an attorney fee dispute,
“[c]ompensation must be sought in an independent action by the attorney against
the client, and not by application to the court in which the litigation is pending.”);
see also Carroll v. Interstate Brands Corp., 99 Ca. App. 4th 1168, 1173 (2002)
(similarly holding that “[a]fter the client obtains a judgment, the attorney must
bring a separate, independent action against the client to establish the existence
of the lien, to determine the amount of the lien, and to enforce it.”)). None of
those cases support his argument that a stay of this litigation is required while the
separate action to determine the attorney lien is pending.
Accordingly, because Avenatti has withdrawn his Notice of Attorney Lien
and has not supported his request to stay the payout of funds to Plaintiff, the
Court DENIES Avenatti’s request for a stay pending the outcome of arbitration.
The Court also DENIES Plaintiff’s request for Rule 11 sanctions against
Avenatti because the primary basis for the motion was Avenatti’s Notice of
Attorney Lien, which he withdrew during the safe harbor period before Plaintiff
filed her Rule 11 motion. ECF No. 49.
B. Trump’s Interest in the Settlement Funds
Trump likewise does not have a certified, enforceable judgment against
Plaintiff. Trump indicated that he had a judgment against Plaintiff, from a prior
lawsuit in the Central District of California, for attorney’s fees in the amount of
Case No. 2:19-cv-119

Page 4 of 8

 Case: 2:19-cv-00119-MHW-EPD Doc #: 63 Filed: 06/02/20 Page: 5 of 8 PAGEID #: 459

$293,052.33, in Case Number 18-cv-06893-SJO. ECF No. 43. He also
attached a “Clerk’s Certification of a Judgment to Be Registered in Another
District” which certified that the Central District of California had entered a
judgment in Trump’s favor against Plaintiff. See ECF No. 43-1. Plaintiff filed a
motion to vacate that registered judgment, arguing that the award was contained
in the California District Court’s Civil Minute Entry, which did not constitute a valid
judgment. ECF No. 47.
On April 10, 2020, Plaintiff filed a Notice of Clerical Error with this Court
from the Clerk of Court for the Central District of California. ECF No. 57. That
notice stated:
The attached Clerk’s Certification of a Judgment to be Registered in
Another District was issued in error by the Clerk. The document
referenced in the Certification was a Minute Order (dkt. # 46), entered
on 12/11/2018, not a judgment. Therefore, it cannot be certified as a
judgment.”
ECF No. 57-1.
Trump argues that the “Clerk’s conclusion is erroneous,” Resp. 1, ECF No.
58, and he has notified this Court that he has moved to certify the attorney’s fees
order for registration in the underlying Central District of California case. ECF
No. 61. He likewise seeks a stay in this Court until his motion is resolved in that
case. Notice, ECF No. 61. Plaintiff opposes the request for a stay. Obj., ECF
No. 62.
“In the federal system, Congress has enacted 28 U.S.C. § 1963 which
Case No. 2:19-cv-119

Page 5 of 8

 Case: 2:19-cv-00119-MHW-EPD Doc #: 63 Filed: 06/02/20 Page: 6 of 8 PAGEID #: 460

permits a party to register certain federal judgments in other federal districts
where they may be enforced.” Euro-American Coal Trading, Inc. v. James
Taylor Mining, Inc., 431 F. Supp. 2d 705, 707–08 (E.D. Ky. 2006). The statute
provides in relevant part that:
A judgment in an action for the recovery of money or property entered
in any court of appeals, district court, bankruptcy court, or in the Court
of International Trade may be registered by filing a certified copy
of the judgment in any other district . . . when the judgment has
become final by appeal or expiration of the time for appeal or when
ordered by the court that entered the judgment for good cause shown.
Such a judgment entered in favor of the United States may be so
registered any time after judgment is entered. A judgment so
registered shall have the same effect as a judgment of the district
court of the district where registered and may be enforced in like
manner.
28 U.S.C. § 1963 (emphasis added).
Here, the plain language of the statute dictates the outcome. Trump
argues that “[t]he Attorney’s Fee Order is a valid, final judgment” that can
nonetheless be registered with this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1963 because
“[a]ll that is required to duly register a foreign judgment is (i) a judgment (ii) that
has become final by appeal or expiration of the time for appeal.” Resp. 2, ECF
No. 58. But Trump is glossing over a key requirement—how to register the
foreign judgment in the first place. See 18 Moore’s Federal Practice – Civil
§ 130.32 (2020) (“To register the judgment [under 28 U.S.C. § 1963], a person
presents a certified copy of the judgment to the court clerk in the district for filing.”
(emphasis added)). Because the Central District of California’s Clerk of Court
Case No. 2:19-cv-119

Page 6 of 8

 Case: 2:19-cv-00119-MHW-EPD Doc #: 63 Filed: 06/02/20 Page: 7 of 8 PAGEID #: 461

has rescinded its certification of judgment, there is no judgment to register under
§ 1963. The Court will not enforce a judgment that has been rescinded.
To the extent Trump argues that the Central District of California Clerk of
Court’s rescission is erroneous or outside the scope of his authority, that is not
for this Court to decide. All that matters for this Court’s review is whether the
necessary steps to register a foreign judgment under § 1963 have been met.
Because they have not, the Court cannot enforce an uncertified judgment.
Moreover, the Court finds that a stay is not warranted. Trump currently
has no certified, enforceable judgment against Plaintiff, and he offers no
argument or caselaw to support his request for a stay. 3 The Court will not grant
a stay simply because a party requests one.
III.

CONCLUSION

Having concluded that neither Avenatti nor Trump currently have an
enforceable interest in the settlement funds and that a stay to determine if they
will in the future is not warranted, the Court hereby DIRECTS the Clerk of Court
to RELEASE the funds deposited pursuant to this Court’s Order in ECF No. 50 to

3

Trump asks in the alternative for more briefing on this issue, but he has made his
position known in numerous filings, including: ECF Nos. 43, 55, 58, 60, 61. The Court
does not need additional briefing. Although it is true that the Court had initially limited
the scope of briefing, the parties did not fully adhere to the Court’s parameters, and
instead, briefed multiple issues others than the issue on which the Court initially
requested briefing. Thus, Trump had ample opportunity to provide the Court with some
legal justification for a stay. In any event, given the lack of enforceable judgment, the
Court is disinclined to permit additional briefing regarding the stay, as it would be futile.
Case No. 2:19-cv-119
Page 7 of 8

 Case: 2:19-cv-00119-MHW-EPD Doc #: 63 Filed: 06/02/20 Page: 8 of 8 PAGEID #: 462

Plaintiff and her attorneys. The Clerk is further DIRECTED to TERMINATE all
pending motions and close this case.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

___/s/ Michael H. Watson___________
MICHAEL H. WATSON, JUDGE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Case No. 2:19-cv-119

Page 8 of 8